According to The Washington Post, it seems the Bush Administration knew damn well that conquering troops could expect serious resistance and retaliation from Iraqis. U.S. intelligence agencies warned Bush administration policymakers before the war in Iraq that there would be significant armed opposition to a U.S.-led occupation, according to administration and congressional sources familiar with the reports.

Although general in nature, the sources said, the intelligence agencies' concerns about the degree of resistance U.S. forces would encounter have proved broadly accurate in the months since the ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his inner circle.

Among the threats outlined in the intelligence agencies' reporting was that "Iraqis probably would resort to obstruction, resistance and armed opposition if they perceived attempts to keep them dependent on the U.S. and the West," one senior congressional aide said. The general tenor of the reports, according to a senior administration official familiar with the intelligence, was that the postwar period would be more "problematic" than the war to overthrow Hussein. And now I think back to Jed Babbin's words last week on Matthews' Hardball: MATTHEWS: OK. Let me bottom line here. They had six months to plan the post-war Iraq occupation. Did Secretary Rumsfeld do the job that needed to be done? Mr. White.

WHITE: I think that all of us, not only him but all of us who were involved in the planning process misestimated the complexity and the enormity of the task. And the people that are still in the chain of command are now dealing with it.

BABBIN: Chris, that question overlooks the basic fact that the plan was not set until the statue fell in the Baghdad Square. The State Department, the CIA on one hand and the Defense Department on the other, were fighting over the issue of whether a provisional government would be established right away.

We could have done that. That would have put more Iraqis in and positions of authority earlier. We blew it by not putting that provisional government in. It’s a division in our government that the president did not resolve timely. And that’s why we have what we have now.

MATTHEWS: But technically, the president had for basically August 29, when we decided to go, to put together a plan.

BABBIN: Sure. And they had different plans. The problem is he didn’t decide the plan for a long time. There were two plans. One was good. One was not. We ended up with the wrong one. So did Bush not have the good intelligence, or was it so important to swagger about this war that he ignored it?

Is this another case where the CIA didn't do it's job, or is this, like the WMD's, the Al Qaeda link, and Bush's disdain for the UN the result of stupid politics?

Even Americans who support this war must be cautious come next year: Even if you support this war, do you trust Bush, who has misfired on every major count so far to continue to lead our country in this desperate and vital fight for our survival?

And yes, the small degree of sarcasm can lend a sense of tone to the question.

Seriously, you may want the war, but do you really want it carried out like this?

- Pincus, Walter. "Spy Agencies Warned of Iraq Resisitance". The Washington Post. September 9, 2003; page A01. see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45455-2003Sep8.html

- Transcript. Hardball with Chris Matthews. Aired September 4, 2003. see http://www.msnbc.com/news/962267.asp

This does not come as a great surprise to anyone, the general inadequacy of the intelligence (in every meaning of the term) that Bush has his disposal. I am shocked that the most powerful nation is being humbled daily by irregular forces. Why simple the US has no cred. in the region, and due to this war the world. Her most valued allies have been systematicly ignored and even ridiculed (Freedom Fries :rolleyes:)! And yet Americans are in awe as to why the Iraqi ppl cannot support imperialism, especially since American imperialism is so beneficial. (note the disgusting amounts of sarcasm). It really says a lot when u see young Iraqi's kissing pics of SADDAM!in Anti- US rallies. That the situation is worse under the guidance of the hyperpower. But isn't it funny how Al Qaeda had to establish in Iraq. Liberators surely of 112 billion barrels of oil, not 26 million ppl. The US has seemingly liberated itself from OPEC (maybe). The US has indeed dug it's own hole, of lies, deceit, spending, and arrogance that surely America will not forget.

they had been ignoring and pressuring intel to be silent.. they hired thier own intel and proved to many of us that they are not interested in the reasons they cited to go to war, casualties or difficulties in setting up a peaceful post war iraq.. the goals were to payback the corporations for providing the funds to select bush.. and they succeeded and are still succeeding with business as usual. though its getting harder and harder to avoid that fact. perpetual war seems to be the plan to keep war mongers empoyed and the war machine monies flowing at record numbers.. just watch the financial pages for the real stories... most of the rest is smoke and mirrors.

Its all a conspiracy! I say. Starts banging my head on the keyboard taweg;ngo;aigh;ghionbbnogbwrhiovwnoioawehdg. You guys got all the good points.

Those who opposed this war pointed out long before it started that it could turn into a quagmire.

As I see it there are two possibilities.

1) The administration is so woefully incompetent that it was unaware of information that anyone with any knowledge about the region could have informed it of.

2) They intentionally ignored this information and claimed the opposite(lied)

If the intelligence agencies really had trouble with this information then perhaps the intelligence agencies should be replaced by one guy who knows how to use the internet.